Dear Tejun Heo, On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:46:06 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Well, I wasn't planning on re-spinning just to add Acked-by/Reviewed-by > > tags, as those are generally added by the subsystem maintainers when > > applying the patches. Though if Tejun says otherwise, I can definitely > > re-spin without any problem. > > > > Tejun, just let me know what you prefer. > > I can collect the -by's but better patch description is always nice. > Maybe just update the patch description and post that one as reply to > the patch posted in this thread? Actually, Bartlomiej wanted the comment about the power management features to be made in the code itself, rather than in the commit log, so I guess I'll just respin the patch series. Expect a v3 tomorrow with this change. > Also, how do you want the patches to be routed? Can all go through libata? As written in the cover letter, I'd expect patches 1 and 2 to go through libata, and then patches 3, 4 and 5 to go through arm-soc. The reason is that patches 3, 4 and 5 modifies the Device Tree files and the ARM defconfigs, which are likely to also be changed by other commits in the same cycle. However, the DT binding documentation change and the driver change are independent, so they can go through libata. I guess Jason Cooper, who handles the patch merging for mvebu platforms, can confirm (or not?) this proposal. Thanks a lot for the feedback! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
